FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 199218. June 26, 2013.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REYNALDO ABRINCILLO alias BULUTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 26, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 199218 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus REYNALDO ABRINCILLO alias BULUTO, accused-appellant.
On appeal is the April 27, 2011 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the judgment 2 of conviction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, of Gumaca, Quezon finding appellant guilty of rape. SHaATC
Briefly, the prosecution proved the following facts. In the midnight of May 3, 2005, AAA 3 was sleeping in her house with her two young children and her 13-year-old sister BBB, when they were awakened by appellant who called out to AAA and asked her to have sex with him. Frightened, AAA did not respond, but appellant kicked open the door of the house and went to where they were. BBB jumped out of the window to seek help from their parents who lived nearby. 4
Appellant was already naked when he reached AAA. Infront of her two young children, appellant undressed AAA despite the latter's resistance. Appellant hit AAA's head, chest and stomach, and even kicked her hip. After subduing AAA, appellant succeeded in having sexual intercourse with AAA. 5
After the rape, AAA was able to escape with her children when she told appellant that she was tired and needed to rest. AAA and her children ran to her parents' house which was then empty. When appellant caught up with them, he threw the children and wrestled with AAA. Appellant punched AAA in the stomach and she lost consciousness. When AAA regained her senses, appellant was on top of her and he inserted his penis into her vagina. 6 AIDTHC
While appellant was still raping AAA, the barangay tanod arrived with AAA's brother-in-law. Appellant resisted when they tried to remove him from AAA. Appellant bit AAA's chin and stabbed her brother-in-law. But they were able to restrain appellant and brought him to the police. 7
For his defense, appellant just invoked his right to remain silent and waived his right to present evidence. His counsel, however, asserted that appellant was out of his mind during the whole incident. 8
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The RTC sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties and ordered him to pay AAA the sum of P50,000 as "consequential damages." The RTC held that there was no question as to appellant's criminal liability since he was positively identified by AAA and the other prosecution witnesses as the perpetrator. The RTC added that appellant must have realized that it was futile to even deny the charge against him since he had to be removed forcibly from AAA when he was arrested. Appellant did not even present any evidence on his behalf.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape but modified the monetary damages awarded. Appellant was further ordered to pay AAA the amount of P50,000 as moral damages. SIcEHC
The Court affirms the decision of the CA. We have carefully reviewed the records of this case and the parties' submissions and find no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the CA. There is no showing that either the RTC or the CA committed any error in law and in its findings of fact especially as to AAA's credibility. It has been consistently held that in criminal cases, the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose conclusion thereon deserves much weight and respect because the judge has the direct opportunity to observe said witnesses on the stand and ascertain if they are telling the truth or not. Absent any showing in this case that the lower courts overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated substantial facts and circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court gives deference to the trial court's appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of witnesses, especially since this Court's own review of the records leads it to conclude that AAA's testimony meets the test of credibility. 9 STHAID
We hereby add the amount of P30,000 as exemplary damages.
However, in line with recent jurisprudence, the Court considers it proper to impose interest on the P50,000 "consequential damage" awarded by the RTC which we deem to be an award for civil indemnity for the rape and the CA's award of P50,000 as moral damages and also on the additional award of exemplary damages considering that there has been delay in the recovery. The imposition is hereby declared to be also a natural and probable consequence of the acts of the accused complained of. The interest imposed is the legal rate of 6% per annum reckoned from the finality of this decision until fully paid. 10 EADCHS
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The April 27, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03916 affirming the conviction of appellant Reynaldo Abrincillo for rape is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant is further ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount of P30,000. Appellant is further ordered to pay interest on all damages awarded in this case at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the finality of this decision until fully paid.
With costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-9. Penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. concurring. The assailed decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03916.
2.CA rollo, pp. 21-26. Penned by Judge Hector B. Almeyda.
3.The victim's real name and personal circumstances or any other information tending to establish or compromise her identity as well as those of her immediate family or household members are withheld per People v. Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 419, 425-426.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id.
9.See People v. Obina, G.R. No. 186540, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 276, 280-281.
10.People v. Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 685, 694.